Nvidia false advertising gtx 970 graphics card only offering refund

[c adlington]

Hi to all

i own a Msi gtx 970 graphics card and over last weekend it has been confirmed by NVIDIA’s Senior VP of GPU Engineering Mr J Alben in a online article (tried to link article would not let me) that nvidia have made an error (or lied:?::? in the spec sheet given to review websites last year and intern has led to consumers being misled with false specification.

 

It has taken nvidia two weeks to come clean about this since consumers first noticed something might be wrong with the card it has also taken them another 3 days to decide they will give a refund to anyone who wants one but the way they have gone about it is a joke the card i have is no longer fit for the intended purpose that i got it for.

 

What i would like to know is have nvidia broken any UK or EU consumer laws and should they be offering more than a refund like compensation or free upgrade to a card that closer matches the original advertized spec. the only option i am open to is the free upgrade as that is the only one that dose not put me out of pocket

 

Any advice or help is greatly appreciated

col adlington

Edited January 30, 2015 by c adlington

[fkofilee]

I, like you, also heard about this. NVidia have actually made a genuine error here with the card.

IF they are offering a refund or an upgrade (You could ask them about a upgrade), I feel they have done enough for the situation. The ball is now squarely in your court as they have offered pretty reasonable resolutioin.

 

From my knowledge... NO, they have not broken any consumer laws. Its not like they have completely ignored the situation...

 

I would add, check this out here;

 

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/anton-shilov/nvidia-vows-to-boost-geforce-gtx-970-performance-with-driver-update/

[c adlington]

joke site sorry i wasted your time shill

[fkofilee]

joke site sorry i wasted your time shill

 

Hey you didnt waste any of our time

 

Always happy to help , I agree with where you are going on this one, but I think that its worth waiting to see if the driver update does anything.

[c adlington]

no nvidia knew you dont introduce new architecture 4 months down the line after everybody has brought the card i got this card with the intention of getting a second one when the consumer oculus rift comes out a mininum of 2k each eye 3.5 vram with .5 tacked on so they can call it 4 is not going to be any good to me.

 

This card was part of brand new build that has cost me over a £1000 the mobo sli compatable psu capable of powering two cards totally unacceptable if nvidia think they refund and thats all i am not paying for nvidias mistakes they make if accept the refund i am going to have to get the gtx 980 at an extra cost of about £170 rewarding nvidia who wins not me.

off to EU commission and UK trading standards i go.

[BankFodder]

If it doesn't conform to its description, then it has been mis-sold and you have rights under the Sale of Goods Act.

 

I think it may be section 13.

[c adlington]

If it doesn't conform to its description, then it has been mis-sold and you have rights under the Sale of Goods Act.

 

I think it may be section 13.

Thank you for the reply BankFodder going to have a look now

cheers

Edited January 29, 2015 by c adlington
spelling

[c adlington]

The info bellow is just what is was looking for thank you again BankFodder as far as i can see UK laws have been broken i would post link but need 10 post so will paste this for any one in the same boat most interesting is the bit in red dont just refund you card seek legal advice

 

Section 13: sale of goods by description

 

 

• SGA 1979 implies conditions relating to sale of goods by description sale of goods act 1979
  S13 Sale by description
  
  • S13(1): goods will correspond with the description
    
  • S13(1A): a condition
    
  • S13(2): if sale by sample & by description it is not sufficient for bulk of goods to correspond with sample not also correspond with description
    
  • S13(3): sale not prevented from being sale by description if selected by buyer
    

   

  [*]S13 condition may be implied whether seller is a business or private individual & there is strict liability for a breach

  [*]sale by description occurs when buyer reasonably relies on seller's description & can apply even if buyer has examined the goods

  [*]case law shows resonableness is key Harlingdon & Leinster v Christopher Hull Fine Art [1990] 3 WLR 13

   

  Facts:

  • plaintiff (P) bought painting from defendant(D) for £6 000
    
  • painting described in auction catalogue as work of Munter (a German impressionist)
    
  • parties were art dealers: P was expert on German art & D was not & P sent experts to inspect painting before sale
    
  • later P discovered painting was a fake & worth only £100
    

  Issue:

   

   

  • was the painting sold by description?
    

  Held:

   

   

  • painting not sold by description & parties could not reasonably have contemplated buyer would rely on seller's description
    
  • no valid claim under S13 SGA 1979
    

   

   

Remedies

 

 

• SGA 1979 specifies remedies for breach of terms implied by S13 & S14
  
• general rule: buyer can terminate contract & reject goods if breach of terms implied by S13 & S14, even if minor
  
• if buyer returns goods: entitled to recover the money paid & not obliged to perform any further obligations under the contract & may sue for damages if there is any further loss
  
• alternatively, buyer may affirm the contract: keep goods & simply sue for damages for any loss suffered
  

 

[c adlington]

one more post then i am done the reason it seems nvidia are not being very truthful is this they have blamed this on a error in communication between engineering and pr they say pr assumed the architecture was the same as the gtx 980 which has lead to the review websites and retailers being misinformed and then consumer but if you look a little deeper this dont make sense on two parts.

 

1 what tech company dose not read its own reviews to check they are correct what no engineer read one review and saw and saw 64 rops instead of 56 or a 2048kb l2 cache instead 1792kb l2 cache no mention in any review of the new memory architecture that should of had its own white sheet for the review to understand and inform consumers about 2 gpuz reports 64 rops off the cards bios the bios is not written by the pr at nvidia i would hope the bios was written by an engineer the cards bios also false something stinks

 

and last nvidia pr if you read this i spent the weekend and this week reading you official forums the forum that nvidia live chat was sending people to get official info from and it was a disgrace that your consumers had to put up with bullying tactics from being called stupid morons crooks for wanting compensation this was repeated over and over again the same few posters trying to make arguments and defend the mess you created this adds zero to the consumer experience and just winds the consumer up even more either police you forums more strictly and portray a better public image or shut them down altogether

 

if i was an nvidia stock holder and read that forum trying to find out why my stocks where going south i would have sued nvidia for that alone not protecting my interest nvidia hang your head in shame and mines a gtx 980 is the only way i am happy by the way nvidia my time is not yours to waste this needs to be an easy process

Edited January 29, 2015 by c adlington
spelling

[Eversir]

I was recently thinking about purchasing a GTX 970 too - glad I saw this first.

 

It makes you wonder how accurate the specifications for other cards are if they can something so fundamental incorrect.